In October 2014, the Southern Baptists convened a national conference with
LGBT activists and it was during this conference that Albert Mohler
apologized for ‘being wrong about sexual orientation.’ In effect, he told
homosexuals that, for 2,000 years the Christian Church has been wrong about
homosexuality, and that that he has a more robust Biblical theology. To buttress his
new theology, Mohler introduced a former lesbian,
Rosaria Butterfield, and a gay celibate Anglican
priest, Sam Allberry, as his two main LGBTQ apologists who would preach a
new gospel for homosexuals — that a “new life in Christ” does not
necessarily confer wholeness in one’s sexual proclivities. Sam Allberry is now an editor for The Gospel Coalition, a
global speaker for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, as well as a
founder and editor of Living Out, a ministry for those struggling with
same-sex attraction.

The short video below features Rev. Allberry
telling the Bishops of the Church of England how wrong they have been, that
they made him feel bullied, as he dismisses the notion that a Christian can
be set free from homosexual desires because they are inborn and do not
change.

Allberry and Butterfield overdramatize how much “same-sex attracted”
“Christians” suffer and how unbearable it is for them to go through life
without marriage. (Do not all Christians have crosses, yet carry them
quietly and never broadcast their troubles or demand special attention?) However, “same-sex attracted”
“Christians” demand affirmation and “safe spaces” (churches) to remain
celibate, a promise on which they often renege.

Pastor Shawn Mathis of the Providence Presbyterian Church has written as
series of excellent articles on “LGBQTI in the Church.” The first article
in the series begins with a stark question that many Christians may have
never considered:

“Multiple Choice: Which quote would you rather
your pastor announce at church?

A. “I am same-sex attracted and have been my
entire life. By that I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional
attractions…”
B. “I am sexually attracted to other women besides my wife. By that I mean
that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions…”
C. “I am sexually attracted to children and have been my entire life. By
that I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions…”

“Likely many readers would pick option ‘D,’ the
ubiquitous ‘none of the above.’ But there are some who consider choice A as
tolerable or acceptable or even laudable.

“Choice A is theopening
wordsof
pastor Sam Allberry’stwo
minute speech that
was passed around on Facebook. Sam struggles with homosexuality, yet he is
celibate.

“Sam is not an obscure pastor in a small town. He
aneditorat
The Gospel Coalition (TGC).

“His two minute speech was hailed as ‘courageous’
and ‘brave.’ (And, no, listening to the entire clip does not change the
meaning of the opening words.)

“But would people consider choice C as
‘courageous’ or ‘brave?’ Why not? Are not all sins sufficient to send us to
hell? Are not all sins covered by the blood of Christ?

“Is not our identity in the Savior and not in our
sin? Can we not accept non-practicing pedophiles into the ministry?

“All such reasoning offered for Allberry applies
equally as well to the other options. Why is homosexuality somehow
different?”

“Or put another way: why is pedophilia different
than the other options? Because it is more heinous in the sight of God and
man…

“Why is this significant?

“Because it highlights a question implicitly
answered by those promoting Allberry: non-practicing homosexuality is not
such a heinous sin that it should be kept private.

“A related assumption is that this sin is not
such that a minister should step down from the ministry after publicly
announcing it.

“But what if a pastor confessed to struggling
with pedophilia? I’d like to think there would be a public outcry. I’d like
to think there would be calls to have him step down as a minister.

“But is publicly confessing to intense, internal
struggle with homosexuality a heinous sin in comparison to others we accept
in the pastorate?...”

According to Sam Allberry, Albert Mohler, and Rosaria Butterfield, there is
no hope of deliverance from the abnormal condition of same-sex attraction.
Mohler, Moore and Butterfield strongly urge Christians to “engage the
culture” but what is the point of cultural engagement if Christians do not
share the good news that a homosexual can become a new creature in Christ
and be set free from their bondage? The outcome
of the watered down message of these false teachers will be a horde of false
converts who are deceived that they are saved and en route to heaven.
The failure of these religious leaders to preach the power of the blood of
Christ to wash away and deliver from sin, including sinful thoughts and
attractions, brings to mind 2 Timothy 3:5.

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power
thereof: from such turn away.”

As we have seen there is another agenda. In 2013, Sam Allberry wrote a book
titled
Is God Anti-Gay?,
which has been distributed in churches to teenagers as young as 14.
Allberry believes this book is age appropriate for 14 year olds, even though
he quotes the radical and profane homosexual, Dan Savage, who was
a policy advisor to former President Obama and scripted much of the
anti-bullying campaign—“It Gets Better”—which was designed to intimidate
public school students who are “non-affirming” of LGBTQs. Here is Sam
Allberry quoting Dan Savage as an authority on bigoted, abusive Christians:

“Denying someone’s sexuality is seen as denying who that person really is.
It is telling them to repress something central to their identity, and
consequently, to their ability to flourish. This is harmful to anyone, but
especially to teenagers who are coming to terms with their sexuality while
still at a formative stage of their lives. Christians, it is claimed, are to
blame for gay teenagers growing up stunted and guilt-ridden, or killing
themselves. This charge has perhaps been made most forcefully by Dan Savage:

“‘The dehumanizing bigotry set forth from the lips of faithful Christians
give your straight children a license to verbally abuse, humiliate, and
condemn the gay children they encounter at school. They fill your gay
children with suicidal despair. And you have the nerve to ask me to be more
careful with my words.’” [2] (Kindle 809-817).

Dan Savage formed NALT (Not
All Like That), for
LGBT-affirming people who claim to be “Christians” but are “not all like
that” referring to allegedly bigoted, non-affirming of LGBT type of
Christians. Savage and his partners also formed “Faith in America,” the
LGBT organization that has been in communication with and scheduling
meetings with the Southern Baptist leadership to ‘dialogue’ with delegates
at the annual convention in Phoenix, AZ June 13-14. Their message to the SBC
was that LGBTs are “born that way.”

“The Clergy Advisory
Committee will serve as media surrogates to speak on behalf of LGBT kids and
teens. FIA will inform and encourage media to engage these ministers and
provide a voice that is distinctly faith-based and can address the anti-LGBT
voices from the religious right and other right wing groups who have
preached hate on this topic over the years in the media.

“This also includes
directly dialoguing with religious organizations and individuals. Five of
the pastors on the FIA Clergy Advisory Committee will be part of the FIA
delegation of doctors, a country music star, parents, local and national
volunteers, bound for the Southern Baptist meeting in Phoenix beginning on
June 13.

“‘Sin is about making
wrong choices and actions,’ says Pastor Stan Mitchell. ‘So the more we can
get religious people to the realization that sexual orientation is an innate
part of a person, a natural part of a human’s being, not a choice, that
dramatically undermines the basis for viewing homosexuality as
behavior-driven immorality or some perverse proclivity. And it further
undermines any justification a person might feel for their condemnation or
proactive prejudice.’”

Thomas Littleton, “the Rev” who evangelized in
New York City during the AIDS crisis, witnessed many homosexuals being saved
and set free from their bondage through faith in Jesus Christ. Tom
corresponded with Sam Allberry for a while, but to no avail. He has given
me permission to share his testimony:

“I ministered in the NYC AIDS reality of the 80s and 90s. We worked in what
amounted to death camps, old hotels filled with mostly dying young men the
city housed there to get them off the streets. People called them ‘AIDS
Hotels.’ The real picture behind homosexuality both culturally and
Biblically is very sad. The CDC in the US tells a disturbing truth about the
health risk – mental issues like depression and suicide, drug and alcohol
use, STDs and HIV/AIDS.

“Monogamy is a bit of a myth especially among the gay male community. There
is more need to expose the realities to keep youth away from exploration and
temptation, yet just the opposite is taking place in the culture. Knowing
your own struggles would it not be needful to help deter the wave promoting
and popularizing the lifestyle than just working to engender compassion and
understanding for those already in it?

“I came out of the drug culture and 38 years later I make every attempt to
expose its dangers and deadly realities while the legalization debate is
just getting traction in the US. The lifestyle will be just as deadly
whether it is legal or not. The same is true of the LGBT lifestyle. It will
still be plagued with these realities even if the culture normalizes it and
the church affirms it (which IS the goal for activists).

“With so many well paid activist groups and well
trained activists ‘in the room,’ so to speak, within the culture and the
church on this topic, it is a danger to take all these narratives at face
value. I am compassionate and understanding of the individual struggles of
many, including yourself. However we are to be moving on to maturity
escaping the lust of the flesh and renewed in our minds by the washing and
regeneration of the word of God, not adding language to the gospel…

“I am an evangelist and have worked in the Arts
Community, University Campuses and in cities like NY. The discussion on this
topic has never been at this fever pitch and no doubt you would agree that
there are pro homosexuality ‘Christians’ in the conversation within the
church. Your book brings a different view of the struggle and your
perspective but it also brings with it a very new terminology for many and
with it the acceptance that a person who is a long time Christian and a
minister is still unchanged in his sexual desire and must therefore ‘Bear a
Cross’ of celibacy.

“The Gospel as the Lord and the Apostles preached
(and we aspire to believe and proclaim it) is NOT so limited as to leave us
unchanged. That is my perspective, and coming from a rather seedy life prior
to salvation. We can be rid of the old and totally new on the matter of sin
of every kind. If the Demoniac can be left ‘clothed and in his right mind’
salvation is none the less effectual for us. If that is NOT true let us all
find something else to do with our lives.

“This is my honest concern on these new terms and
perspective and the new narrative. Also is it (the book) suitable for a 14
year old?

“There is a FLOOD of LGBT activist efforts to
force acceptance of the lifestyle on the Evangelical Church here in the U.S.
Savage has formed NALT and Faith in America with some of his partners. He
does not espouse faith in God yet intends to tell Christians how to believe.

“Mathew Vines is quoting Savage these days as
well. Mathew says ‘respectfully’ the ‘Bible does NOT condemn
homosexuality.’ Savage says ‘the Bible is Bull***t’! So which of those
views is Vines actually supporting? Savage is married to a man yet mocks
monogamy! ‘Savage Love’ – Dan’s erotic gay blog – well let’s just not go
there. So among these mixed messages and confusing signals to young
believers, is it really wise on your part to give ANY credibility to a
single claim Dan Savage is making? I insist that it is not.

“Consider a less mixed message now that the
conservative Christian camp in the US is promoting your books and articles.
Teens are getting such overt messages in the media and entertainment
industries and culture at large. The US culture is promoting the LGBT
lifestyle as never before. The ancient landmarks are being removed and or
repositioned. We do not need as ministers of Christ to be sending mixed
signals or an uncertain sound.

“Again I have the question...Do you think your
book ‘Is God Anti Gay?’ is appropriate for 14 year old teens? Mostly
youth in church who have thankfully been kept from some of the LGBT debate
are a significant part of your audience from what I have heard. That is the
case in our church.

“True ministers are not wanting to confuse youth
even more, correct? I have been in evangelistic ministry for 38 years.
CLARITY is the Goal.

“CRYSTAL CLEAR GOSPEL CLARITY.

“To give voice to Dan’s accusations against the
church is bad practice – very bad indeed. This looks like a classic thesis
vs. anti thesis = consensus approach which is not really what is needed IF
we want to help Christian youth. Let me know your thoughts about the age
appropriateness question.

Allberry’s response was his last:

“I appreciate your email. I do think my book is appropriate to 14 year olds.
I tried to keep the writing style and concepts accessible to such an age and
hope the book will answer questions they’re asking and not unduly prompting
ones they're not. I've had good feedback from parents and youth ministers
from both sides of the Atlantic.

“I agree that Savage’s view are abhorrent. They are also very influential,
which I why I want to take them on.”

Every blessing,

Sam

D.A. CARSON

Sam Allberry is an editor for The Gospel Coalition.
The
president of The Gospel Coalition, D.A. Carson, is a Reformed theologian and
professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dr.
Carson has a reputation for being conservative. As recently as April 2017,
D.A. Carson warned Christians against believing they can affirm
homosexuality:

“Inevitably, there have been some articulate voices that insist that
adopting an “affirming” stance on homosexual marriage does not jeopardize
one’s salvation and should not place such a person outside the evangelical
camp. For example, in his essay “An Evangelical Approach to Sexual
Ethics,” Stephen Holmes concludes, “Sola Fide. I have to stand on that.
Because the Blood flowed where I walk and where we all walk. One perfect
sacrifice complete, once for all offered for all the world, offering
renewal to all who will put their faith in Him. And if that means me, in
all my failures and confusions, then it also means my friends who affirm
same-sex marriage, in all their failures and confusions. If my faithful
and affirming friends have no hope of salvation, then nor do I.”4 But this
is an abuse of the evangelical insistence on sola fide. I do not
know any Christian who thinks that salvation is appropriated by means of
faith plus an affirmation of heterosexuality. Faith alone is the means by
which sola gratia is appropriated. Nevertheless, that grace is so
powerful it transforms. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone
issues in a new direction under the lordship of King Jesus. Those who are
sold out to the “acts of the flesh ... will not inherit the kingdom of
God” (Gal 5:19–21). The apostle Paul makes a similar assertion in 1
Corinthians 6:9–11:

“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
adulterers not men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor
drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were
sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by
the Spirit of our God (emphasis added).”

Conservative Christians were therefore
surprised when Sam Allberry was appointed an editor at TGC, and further
stunned when D.A. Carson
enthusiastically endorsed Gregory Coles’ book
Single, Gay, Christian.

“To say this book is important is a painful understatement. It is the
candid, moving, intensely personal story of a gay young man who wants to
live his life under the authority of King Jesus and who refuses to accept
the comforting answers proffered by different parts of the culture. Superbly
written, this book stands athwart the shibboleths of our day and reminds us
what submission to King Jesus looks like, what it feels like. This book
needs to be thoughtfully read by straight people and by gay people, by
unbelievers and by Christians. It is not to be read with a condescending
smirk, but with humility.”

—D.
A. Carson,
president, The Gospel Coalition, research professor of New Testament,
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

As a
professor of New Testament, what did Dr. Carson think of Gregory Cole’s
“submission to King Jesus” when he denied the inerrancy of Scripture, cast
doubt on the Creation account, God’s character, and questioned Bible verses
condemning sodomy as an abomination?

“How
do we respond when the order of creation changes between Genesis 1 and
Genesis 2? When kidnapping and enslaving people is condemned, but slaves are
told to obey their masters? When Paul appears to forbid women from filling
leadership roles in the church and then speaks highly of women who have
taken on leadership roles? The logic of surface meaning forces us to read
dismissively, to overlook or explain away whatever doesn’t seem to fit. We
miss the opportunity to read holistically because we’re too busy regrouping,
cutting our losses, trying to protect the Bible from itself...

“Paul
says practicing homosexuals won’t inherit the kingdom of God. So gay sex is
a sin. End of story. #insertdefinitivehashtaghere.’ If that had been
the whole story, I could have accepted it and moved on. But as I learned
once I started to read, it wasn’t the whole story.

“…The
case against homosexual behavior wasn’t as clear-cut as I’d been trained to
believe. Because language and translation are complicated things.

“I
began my research with Paul’s famous lists prohibiting same-sex behavior in
1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. Since Paul had neither the luxury of
English nor a twenty-first-century conception of sexual behavior, I
realized, it was functionally impossible to offer a twenty-first-century
English rendering of these passages that would mean precisely the same
thing. The Greek word often rendered “homosexual
offenders” or “practicing homosexuals” in English is arsenokoitai,
a compound formed from the Greek words arsēn, male, and koitē,
bed. A man-bedder.

“Obviously a homosexual, right? Probably. But no responsible language
scholar would call it a slam dunk. The problem with assuming we understand
this word is that Paul’s two uses are the first times the word appears
anywhere in the Greek corpus we now have access to. And we can’t go assuming
that the parts of a compound word point irrevocably to the whole, unless
we’re ready to assert that the English poets who praised the butterfly were
thrilled by winged dairy products.” (Single,
Gay, Christian, p. 35)

A
correction is in order to Coles’ assertion that “Since Paul had neither the
luxury of English nor a twenty-first-century conception of sexual behavior,
I realized, it was functionally impossible to offer a twenty-first-century
English rendering of these passages [on homosexuality] that would mean
precisely the same thing.” He is saying that Paul had no experiential
knowledge of homosexuality of the type practiced in the 21st century.
Gregory Coles is 26 years old; apparently he is neither a student of
Scripture nor ancient history. Most likely, he is just pushing the gay
agenda on other Biblical illiterates. Coles' education and expertise are in
the rhetorics of marginality—
how to use language “to organize and maintain social groups, construct
meanings and identities, coordinate behavior, mediate power, produce change,
and create knowledge.”

So,
was the apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, ignorant of the history
of homosexuality? According to one theologian, David Johnson of Asia Pacific
Theological Seminary, “Because of his background and education, Paul was
bi-cultural, equally at home in both Greek and Jewish literature and
cultures and fluent in Hebrew, Greek and Aramiac.” (“The
Apostle Paul: Scholar and Student”)
As a Roman citizen and student of Gamaliel, who was an avid student of Greek
literature, Paul was very familiar with Greek and Roman cultures which not
only practiced sodomy for centuries but even institutionalized pederasty. To
say that Paul did not have “a twenty-first century conception of sexual
behavior” is patently false. There is nothing new under the sun, including
21st century sexual behavior.

Greg
Coles continues to mock the words in Scripture that homosexuals must
discredit to advance their agenda in the Church :

“What
about Leviticus 18 and 20, I wondered, where God declares that for men to
lie together is an ‘abomination’ (toebah in Hebrew)?
Wasn’t an abomination something so bad that it would
always be forbidden, even under the new covenant of Christ? Again, a
careful linguistic analysis made my life more complicated.
Deuteronomy 14 used the same word, toebah,
to describe unclean foods forbidden to the Hebrew people—foods Jesus would
later declare clean to true God-followers.”
(p.36)

Nice try, but God called some foods an abomination in the Old Testament for
reasons that did not exist in the New Testament. God declared “unclean”
foods that were a spiritual and health risk for the Israelites, but those
prohibitions were not applicable in the new dispensation:

Leviticus 11

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts
which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

“1, 2. the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron – These laws, being addressed
to both the civil and ecclesiastical rulers in Israel, may serve to indicate
the twofold view that is to be taken of them. Undoubtedly the first and
strongest reason for instituting a distinction among meats was to discourage
the Israelites from spreading into other countries, and from general
intercourse with the world—to prevent them acquiring familiarity with the
inhabitants of the countries bordering on Canaan, so as to fall into their
idolatries or be contaminated with their vices: in short, to keep them a
distinct and peculiar people. To this purpose, no difference of creed, no
system of polity, no diversity of language or manner, was so subservient as
a distinction of meats founded on religion; and hence the Jews, who were
taught by education to abhor many articles of food freely partaken of by
other people, never, even during periods of great degeneracy, could
amalgamate with the nations among which they were dispersed. But although
this was the principal foundation of these laws, dietetic reasons also had
weight; for there is no doubt that the flesh of many of the animals here
ranked as unclean, is everywhere, but especially in warm climates, less
wholesome and adapted for food than those which were allowed to be eaten.
These laws, therefore, being subservient to sanitary as well as religious
ends, were addressed both to Moses and Aaron.” (Jamie-Faussett-Brown
Commentary)

Gregory Coles
proceeds to dispute the sin of Genesis 19 and Romans 1 as
“not
sodomy.”
Like Rosaria Butterfield, Coles is
“queering the Bible”
to mean something other than what it says.

“I
read with burgeoning hopefulness, burgeoning enthusiasm. The story of Sodom
in Genesis 19—perhaps it wasn’t about same-sex attraction but about gang
rape. Indeed, the prophet Ezekiel’s later assessment of Sodom had nothing to
do with homosexuality: ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and
her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the
poor and needy’ (16:49). And Romans 1—it seemed Paul’s primary interest was
in rebellion against God, not homosexuality. Perhaps he was simply
referencing familiar practices of temple prostitution or the famous
perversions of the Roman emperor Caligula for illustrative purposes. That
was it: six biblical references to homosexuality. That was all I needed to
explain away in order to hang on to my faith and still have everything I
wanted.” (Single, Gay, Christian, Kindle 405).

D.A.
Carson who enthusiastically endorsed Gregory Coles’ heretical book, recently
signed the Nashville Statement along with other religious leaders who only
pretend to uphold Bible doctrine while they
secretly collaborate with the enemies of
Christ:

“Article 10 says, ‘WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual
immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential
departure from Christian faithfulness and witness. WE DENY that the approval
of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference
about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.’”

Albert
Mohler, who also signed the Nashville Statement, is another pretender to
Christian orthodoxy. Mohler was a liberal at Samford University and
Southern Seminary, and he’s still a
liberal. According to Mark Dever, Mohler was a liberal Baptist who
denied the inerrancy of Scripture. Then suddenly Mohler turned into a conservative,
and his liberal friends thought he turn coated for a position. (Reformation
and the SBC)

“Dever
describes the Mohler he knew at Southern for over a year and a half whose
‘biography has sort of changed over the years.’ Dever further says something
to the effect ‘Al was
inconsistent in his own thinking. He became editor of the Christian Index in
Georgia and I was in England, reading those editorials and was surprised how
conservative they were. He sort of nailed his colors to the door and those
weren’t even his colors three years before. I could see where conservative
people at Southern thought he had turn coated and was being trained for a
position.’ Dever describes Al as an orthodox evangelical student who was
dealing with the liberal influences at Samford in Birmingham and was in a
tension, not having a category for what the was hearing at a Baptist
University. ‘He gets to Southern and that is exacerbated.’ Then in his
doctoral work with Timothy George he is ‘learning about Augustine and Calvin
and that causes even more tension.’ Dever adds ‘when
I met Al he was not an inerrantist. Also he was egalitarian. I don’t
think he was comfortable’ with the tension. ‘Al’s liberal friends were right
that he changed. They were wrong that he changed for power. He really did
change.’ Is Dever saying Mohler left his liberal friends dazed and confused
as well?” (Thomas Littleton, “Aging, Resourced, and Less (Historically)
Reformed: The Gospel Coalition”)

TIM KELLER

The
Gospel Coalition is not conservative but a progressive global movement
promoting “Social Justice” and the “Common Good.” According to Thomas
Littleton, “The Coalition seeks to motivate pastors and theologians to
subscribe to a policy of social activism”
in order to
“create a movement that by long-term effort could renew and reform
evangelical thought and practice.”

“The
greater of Dr. Mohler’s show of influence is beyond the SBC with Dever to
the larger reformed community through the PCA’s Tim Keller. All are key
players in The Gospel Coalition. Because TGC is reformed it is almost
universally assumed that it is also socially conservative. If you still make
this assumption perhaps you have not followed the Coalition very closely.
Colin Hansen (Young, Restless and Reformed) writes about TGC,

‘The
vision of the Coalition is to create a movement that by long-term effort
could renew and reform evangelical thought and practice, both in the USA and
worldwide. The Coalition seeks to motivate pastors and theologians to
subscribe to a policy of social activism. The theological vision for
ministry urges Christians to become a counterculture for the common good.
The ‘doing of justice and mercy’ is an important aspect of the Coalition’s
gospel centered ministry. ‘The resurrection of Jesus shows that he is going
to redeem both the spiritual and the material. Therefore God is concerned
not only for the salvation of souls but also for the relief of poverty,
hunger, and injustice.’ (Young, Restless and Reformed, p. 13)

“By admission of one of its primary early spokesmen
TGC is a progressive global movement promoting Social Justice and the Common
Good. This is the classic realm reserved for humanist ‘Christians’
and those adept at Bible twisting who tout Jesus as a non-divine homeless
man crying out for the cause of the underserved.”

Tim Keller, who co-founded The Gospel Coalition with D.A. Carson, is a
progressive pastor in the Presbyterian Church of America. Keller was
admittedly influenced by the Marxist Frankfurt School and promotes the
cultural Marxist social gospel and agenda.

“There is growing concern in the Presbyterian Church of America’s ranks and
the smaller more traditional reformed circles about TGC, Tim Keller and
friends. Keller, the cofounder of The Gospel Coalition, and Al Mohler are
considered to be the new great thinkers of evangelicalism. Keller is even
called the new C.S. Lewis. Keller began his soft shoe dance on
homosexuality in 2013 saying ‘Christians can support gay marriage in the
culture – just not in the church’ (a dangerously flawed misunderstanding of
the realities of redefining marriage). By 2015, Keller was unable to
clearly state that homosexuality is a sin in a Veritas Forum interview.
Earlier that year he served to develop a major evangelical compromise with
other leaders by promoting the
Civilitas Group.
The Civilitas Group Theory of Social Change was developed by the Institute
for Advanced Studies in Culture at UVA. The IASC celebrates its intellectual
roots in the Marxist Frankfurt School, which influenced TGC co-founder
Keller and ‘like minded’ evangelicals to ‘change the tone in the church on
race (like addressing white privilege and supremacy), Islam, homosexuality
and incivility in general,’ while leaders in TGC are out to reform
evangelical thought and practice worldwide. They are on the cutting edge of
pushing a left of center social agenda on the rest of the church which
largely takes them for conservative Biblical leaders with a Gospel driven
vision.”

“According to many traditional reformed leaders outside The Gospel
Coalition, Mohler, Keller, Dever, John Macarthur and others are not truly
historically reformed but are a hodgepodge of theological diversions—some
considered heretical by classically reformed standards—promoting a
progressive social gospel wrapped in a new transforming theology. They are
highly ecumenical as in the case of partnering with troubled Charismatic
Mark Driscoll and the now defrocked PCA embarrassment, Tullian Tchividjian.”
(Thomas Littleton)

Keller
was pastor of the New York City Church but recently
transitioned to “work full-time teaching in a partner program with Reformed
Theological Seminary and working with Redeemer’s City to City church
planting network…to teach seminary courses…and…to dedicate himself to
teaching the next generation of pastors…

“‘Kathy and I are not going anywhere. New York is
our home, and you are our people. We’re not leaving New York or the
fellowship of Redeemer,’ he assured the church Sunday. ‘I’m becoming a
teacher-trainer …. There’s going to have to be a dramatic increase in church
leaders in this city if we’re going to start all these churches.”

Keller, Reformed Theological
Seminary and CRU, formerly Campus Crusade, are partnering with cultural
Marxists to recruit churches
and ministries of all types to help struggling cities to thrive. However,
sharing the Gospel is not permitted because the program depends on Faith
Based Partnerships between government and corporations with the churches and
ministries involved.

“Seeking the Welfare of the City – Is it
possible to reach our cities with the Gospel while partnering with the
ideologies destroying them?

“This collaboration began 2005 in Orlando with CRU
and Lausanne Movement representative Vonette
Bright, PCAs Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando) and NY City pastor Tim
Keller. The Polis Report here is
worth the time to read. The Seeking the Welfare of the City movement
partners with pro- Marxist, pro-gay Urban specialist, Richard Florida, whose
ideology promotes the use of a Gay Index and Tolerance Index much like the
HRC Equality Index. (Richard Florida is also promoted by Bob Buford,
Leadership Network, many Ed Stetzer interviews, Tim Keller, and a host of
other curiously confused conservatives.)

“Richard Florida measures and rates cities by his
indexes. (The
Gayest Cities in America) Florida’s work with Smart Cities, Atlantic
Magazine, City Lab and other urban centralized planning is renowned as the
gold standard in economic development, urban renewal, historic preservation
and community transformation.

“Florida’s books, beginning with the Rise of
the Creative Class, assert that such urban centers must attract the
Creative Class in order to succeed. This Creative elite includes gays,
lesbians. bohemians, artists and musicians whose absence from inclusion in
your project would doom it to failure. In actuality, the reason for
Florida’s success lies more in the fact that major private and government
grant funding uses his indexes as a LITMUS test for who will receive
funding. A Florida protégé helps run the UCLA based Williams Institute
whose work includes tracking the location of LGBTQ population clusters in
order to help aid in what radical activists call ‘Queering the Census’.

“So, the question begs – how can ministries like
CRU, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Lausanne collaborate with such
partners? Where is the common ground and the common good? How can Tim
Keller, who has imported the Seek the Welfare of the City and Richard
Florida’s Marxist ideology into his global church planting and City to City
work, collaborate with such progressive pro homosexual policy while
espousing Civility as the answer for the Church to a full-frontal assault?

“Is Ignorance Bliss or just Criminal?

“How can any of these church leaders named above
ignore what is taking place in public schools with LGBTQ activists, the
Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood? How can conservative
ministers jump on the collective band wagon of urban planning and think its
pro Marxist and pro homosexual ideologies are compatible with or can be
‘Christianized’ by injecting few Bible verse justifications?”

The
way this happens is that Tim Keller has admitted he is a cultural Marxist
and that he is “calling for a “radical new arrangement for the Christian
church.” By “a radical new arrangement” he really means “a radical new
agenda,” that is, fulfilling the Social Justice Gospel instead of the Great
Commission.

“Timothy F
Kauffman, writing in The Trinity Review in March 2014, has produced
an article, in two parts, with the provocative title, ‘Workers of the
Church, Unite!: The Radical Marxist Foundation of Tim Keller’s Social
Gospel’. Part 1 reviews of Tim Keller’s book, Every Good Endeavour:
Connecting Your Work to God’s Work (2012) and demonstrates that his view
of work is deeply entrenched in Marxist ideology. Part 2 shows that Keller
has been heavily influenced by several prominent socialists or Marxists
economists and theologians, whom he cites regularly to support his theses.

“Kauffman’s analysis is entirely consistent with
the sentiments that Keller expressed in The Reason for God (2008),
where he writes about his emotional attachment to the ideas of the Frankfurt
School of Neo-Marxism. He confesses that in college he was ‘heavily
influenced by the neo-Marxist critical theory of the Frankfurt School’, and
admits that he ‘was emotionally’ drawn to the social activism of the
neo-Marxists. Keller closes The Reason for God hoping his readers
will become ‘true revolutionaries’ and will ‘go from here’ into churches
that are devoted to actions of social justice. He seeks to spawn the
realization of the ‘desperate need’ he felt as a college student ‘to find a
group of Christians who had a concern for justice in the world but who
grounded it in the nature of God rather than in their own subjective
feelings’.”

“The Reason for God
is a religious socio-political manifesto calling for a radical ‘new
arrangement’ for the Christian church.”

KELLER PREDICTS “END
OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT”

In 2013, Tim Keller spoke at public / secular faith forum about the end of the Christian Right and the future of the church without it.
Tim Keller is shrewd enough to hedge his prediction, but he is not merely
surmising the end of the Christian right. He concludes his talk with the
observation that there is among younger evangelicals “a kind of conservative
Christian view that is okay with gay marriage.” In other words, a “new
Christian conservative” view that is not terribly exercised about
homosexuality and is therefore more tolerant of gay people and gay marriage
than their parents and grandparents.

“The
Faith Angle Forumis
a semi-annual conference which brings together a select group of 20
nationally respected journalists with 3-5 distinguished scholars on areas of
religion, politics & public life.”

“Conservative Christianity
after the Christian right — I am used to speaking about things that I am
absolutely certain of. I am used to speaking about things I would take a
bullet for and things I would die for. I would like the record to show that
I am not willing to die for my opinion on conservative Christianity after
the Christian right…

“But…

“…the church that I pastor and have pastored for
quite a while is full of what is known as the millennials. A high percentage
of them are unaffiliated, the 18 to 29 year olds, and then the next
generation, those are the people that are there in my church.

“32 is the median age of the people who attend
Redeemer, which makes it about 80 percent under 42 or something like that.
And so I live in that world that is totally allergic to institutional
religion, and I live amongst what you have to call younger evangelicals. And
so it’s just as well I do speak to this I guess, because I’m old enough and
my church is young enough that maybe I can say something about it…

“What is changing is for the
first time in history a growing group of people who think the Bible is bad,
it’s dangerous, it’s regressive, it’s a bad cultural force, that was just
never there. It was very tiny. And that’s because the middle ground has
shifted, so it is more identified with the more secular, the less religious,
and it’s less identified now with the more devout…

“Now, I am in a spot where I
have seen, for reasons I will tell you under my second heading here, that I
have seen a lot of disaffected, Anglo-type people who go off to college,
decide that I can’t find a Christianity or a faith that really works for me,
and then get recaptured by Redeemer and churches in Manhattan. I can see
that, and I do see it — I don’t know how statistically significant it is.
Maybe it’s not much. But I do know we can hold our own with that crowd. I
just know it can be done…

“Here is what I mean. First of all, it is true
that younger evangelicals are not wedded that much to the Christian right.
To me, the Christian right was conservative politics, which would mean
smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, a pretty high
value on free market capitalism. To me the Christian right was that, along
with traditional 2,000-year-old Christian values of anti-abortion, no easy
divorce, homosexuality is wrong. And you put that together you had the
Christian right.

“Now, there is no doubt that on the economic and
political side that younger evangelicals just are not as wedded to the high
value of the free market, super strong national defense, or small
government. They are very sensitive to issues of what they would call
justice and the needs of the poor. And if they see public policies that
don’t seem to take that into account, they are not happy…

“Peter Berger, in one of your
Faith Angle transcripts,…said if the evangelicals become assimilated then
they will just become like everybody else, which they might. They might.
There’s a lot of pressure out there. And if they’re triumphalistic, they
will be just thrown out. In other words, if they just start to beat people
over the head with a Bible, they just get thrown out. But it’s possible that
it might have a big effect, and it might, and I do think there is something
like that going on out there…

“I think younger evangelicals are not incredibly
exercised. I think they realize that there are at least three positions you
could have as a professing Christian. You could say, ‘I believe the Bible,
but I think the Bible doesn’t really condemn homosexuality.’ I have argued
why I think there are some deep inconsistencies in that…

“The second possibility is, ‘I believe
homosexuality is wrong, but there is really no reason why to keep gay people
out of the inherent conservatism of marriage.’ As some of you know, there
are plenty of people who say marriage is an inherently conservative
institution. David Blankenhorn’s whole point is, let’s just keep it where it
is. And if gay people want to get into it, fine. What the country needs is
strong marriages.

“And then, the third view is that it is bad for
human flourishing, because it is not the way human beings are wired. It is
not good for children — the French approach, which is every child has the
right to a father and a mother. So you shouldn’t enshrine a particular form
of marriage that permanently keeps a child from having one or the other.

“So those are three positions, and I would say
younger evangelicals are just not incredibly strident about it. They just
aren’t, because they know there is a liberal view, a liberal Christian view,
there’s a kind of conservative Christian view that is okay with gay
marriage…”

Tim Keller is not merely an observer of this
Evangelical shift to liberalism but a key leader in the Marxist subversion
of Christianity. A few excerpts from his book, The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith,
reveal Keller’s deceptive strategy to distance younger evangelicals from the
Word of God and the faith of their Christian parents, whom he calls
“Pharisees,” and then claim that “those
with liberal views on sex, politics, and culture…were kind, reasonable, and
open-hearted.”

“Luke recounts that here were two groups of people
who had come to listen to Jesus. First there were the ‘tax collectors and
sinners.’ These men and women correspond to the younger brother. They
observed neither the moral laws of the Bible nor the rules for ceremonial
purity followed by religious Jews. They engaged in ‘wild living.’ Like the
younger brother, they ‘left home’ by leaving the traditional morality of
their families and of respectable society. The second group of listeners was
the ‘Pharisees and the teachers of the law,’ who were represented by the
elder brother. They held to the traditional morality of their upbringing.
They studied and obeyed the Scripture. They worshipped faithfully and prayed
constantly.

“With great economy Luke shows how different each
group’s response was to Jesus. The progressive tense of the Greek verb
translated ‘were gathering’ conveys that the attraction of younger brothers
to Jesus was an ongoing pattern in his ministry. They continually flocked to
him. This phenomenon puzzled and angered the moral and the religious. Luke
summarizes their complaint: ‘This man welcomes sinners and [even] eats with
them.’ To sit down and eat with someone in the ancient Near East was a token
of acceptance. ‘How dare Jesus reach out to sinners like that?’ they were
saying. ‘These people never come to our services! Why would they be drawn to
Jesus’s teaching? He couldn’t be declaring the truth to them, as we do. He
must be just telling them what they want to hear!’” (pp. 7-9)

“There are many people today who have abandoned
any kind of religious faith because they see clearly that the major
religions are simply full of elder brothers. They have come to the
conclusion that religion is one of the greatest sources of misery and strife
in the world. And guess what? Jesus says through this parable—they are
right. The anger and superiority of elder brothers, all growing out of
insecurity, fear, and inner emptiness, can create a huge body of
guilt-ridden, fear-ridden, spiritually blind people, which is one of the
great sources of social injustice, war, and violence.” (pp. 66-67)

“Our big cities are filled with younger brothers
who fled from churches in the heartland that were dominated by elder
brothers. When I moved to New York City in the late 1980s to begin a new
church, I thought I would meet many secular people who had no familiarity
with Christianity at all. I did, but to my surprise I met just as many
people who had been raised in churches and in devout families and had come
to New York City to get as far away from them as possible. After about a
year of ministry we had two or three hundred people attending services. I
was asked, ‘Who is coming to your church?’ Upon reflection, I answered that
it was about one-third non-believers, one-third believers, and one-third
‘recovering’ believers—younger brothers. I had met so many younger brothers
who had been hurt and offended by elder brothers that neither they nor I
were sure whether they still believed the Christian faith or not.

“The most common examples of this I saw were the
many young adults who had come from more conservative parts of the U.S. to
take their undergraduate degrees at a New York City school. Here they met
the kind of person they had been warned about for years, those with liberal
views on sex, politics, and culture. Despite what they had been led to
believe, those people were kind, reasonable, and open-hearted. When the
students began to experience a change in their own views, they found that
many people back home, especially in the churches, responded in a hostile
and bigoted way. Soon they had rejected their former views along with their
faith. The elder brothers had turned them into younger brothers.

“We discovered, however, that younger brothers
were willing to come to our church because they saw that we made a clear
distinction between the gospel and religious moralism, and that provided an
opportunity in which they could explore Christianity from a new
perspective.” (pp. 67-69)

The Prodigal God
is basically a polemic against Christianity which likens those who uphold
sound doctrine to “Pharisees” for the purpose of turning the younger
generation against the Word of God. Tragically, many young Christians do not
have or have rejected sound doctrine and, not knowing the truth will not
discern the counterfeit— the cultural Marxist agenda to destroy Christianity.
The final nail in the coffin of the apostate church will be driven by the
White House Faith-Based Partnership legislation.

The fact is that The Gospel Coalition set the
tone for the Christian Church to counter the “powers that be” for years
while they were in bed with them. Now The Gospel Coalition is leading
churches into “faith-based partnerships” with the government so they will
not resist its social agenda.
As predicted by Tom Littleton, “The entire homosexual agenda will be fully
forced on the churches by virtue of Faith-Based Partnerships.”

“And unto the angel of the church of the
Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true
witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou
art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. Re 3:16 So then
because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of
my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have
need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and
poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the
fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be
clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine
eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and
chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and
knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him,
and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant
to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with
my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit
saith unto the churches.” Revelation
3:14:22